Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry you view free speech as a form of criminal activity. And I mean that sincerely because there are more and more people like you in America every day.
No. I take a dim view of criminal activity parading as "free speech." I also take a dim view of grievance warriors with self-entitlement issues who continually moan about how unfairly they are being treated when privately-owned businesses don't care to provide them with soapboxes from which to harangue others with their various, hateful screeds.
If those who support Parler are comfortable with being a part of the Dark Web, which is rampant with criminal activity (not the least of which is pedophilia), then so be it. It only confirms in my mind that the mainstream platforms which don't want any part of Parler were justified in their decision.
To address one of the OP's concerns, truth in advertising laws have not fallen by the wayside. They're still very much with us. But news broadcasts are not advertising. So, in order to apply a "truthfulness" measure to media news reports, the issue would have to be tested in court, and the parameters of "truthfulness" to be applied to the news would have to be delineated. That would be quite a project, kind of like defining what "pornography" is, where one Supreme Court justice famously said, "I know it when I see it".
Again, Wiki:
Quote:
Commercial speech occupies a unique role as a free speech exception. While there is no complete exception, legal advocates recognize it as having "diminished protection".[49] For example, false advertising can be punished and misleading advertising may be prohibited
If you follow Twitter and people's short post there you will notice an increase in mentions of "The Fairness Doctrine", which once existed until the newly elected President Reagan revoked it. Shortly after that came the PAC that fed Rush Limbaugh's national "entertainment". Then Fox. There had also been equal time for opposing points of view prior to this. The reasoning for revoking this Government Safe Guard, was that more new channels of news were available to the public than what existed in the mid 50's so people could supposedly listen to other points of view from other sources. (but when you're in a work place where the boss plays Rush thru the PA System...instead of soothing music....to ad nauseam because Rush wants all the worker bees to understand every boss is a King and they who aren't bosses should know their place) Then it's those workers who will in a sense brain washed by the spew of lies, hate, and bigotry.
Reagan was said to have done this as a pay back to the big broadcasting/media contributors to his election. Reagan was also into cutting taxes for the very wealthy.
There is a question as to who controls so much of this media today. Rupert Murdock is a big player in America's media, newspapers, and news magazines. But about 15 Billionaires and 6 corporations own most of America's media. And it goes beyond the USA into other countries.
There was a time when people purchased Short Wave Radios to tune into BBC, Radio Canada International, Voice of America, Christian Science Monitor, Radio Netherlands, Deutsche Welle, Radio Australia, and others to get accurate news reporting and compare for themselves what they heard to forge what they would believe to be the truth.
The USA may be forced to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine and an equal time to rebuttal what seems to be false claims (or lies) in order to go back to what it was prior to 1980. And it bears mentioning President Eisenhower's warning in the mid 1950's about that splinter group of Mr Hunt, a few Texas Oil Millionaires and assorted Businessmen & Politicians who he claimed to be "Stupid". But by the time of Reagan and Billionaires taking advantage of/abusing free speech thru the media that splinter group grew into an mighty invasive vine. Eisenhower had these Billionaires & Millionaires in the 91% Tax Bracket such that they wouldn't have money to do this. Reagan began cutting taxes on them so that they would have the money to create a media that could do what they wanted without much accountability. Even the FCC's roll was slowly eroded.
Eisenhower's warning speech: (and Social Security wasn't all that was on their agenda)
This is what has taken place in the last 40 years and you can see where we are today. In Eisenhower's days no one would have believed that a President would use the media to lead an insurrection against the nations Capital.
I once listened to an interview with Barbra Walters speaking with the Shaw of Iran. The last question she asked in the interview was what the Shaw thought would be the leading cause for the fall of The United States of America. The Shaw pondered for a moment and replied, "Your unlimited/unchecked freedom of speech will be the end of you". The Shaw seemed to see it as a vulnerability so those who would spread lies and agitate trouble so that internal strife & division would occur.
The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses, not cable, satellite, and internet. So most of the outlets that have questionable practices did not fall under it anyway.
Well, I'm a Joe Sixpack kind of guy. Why can't I use Parler anymore? Is it because people used Parler to plan riots? But people used Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to plan riots and those sites haven't been taken down.
All of the Tech Oligarchs ban, shadow ban, and de-monetize people whose political ideas they disagree with. Free speech includes the right to read others' opinions, not just the right to go and shout in the wilderness.
Back when there were were only three television networks, you couldn't demand any of their air time to deliver your own speech against Lyndon Johnson. You had to set up your own television network, like Ted Turner.
You couldn't demand that CBS Radio give you air time to give your speech against Franklin D Roosevelt. You had to set up your own
You couldn't demand the Wall Street Times give you editorial space to write your polemic against Teddy Roosevelt. You had to buy a printing press, paper, ink, and pay people to carry it across the country.
But today you--yes, you, Joe Sixpack--can buy a server and an Internet connection for less than $1,000 and set up a website to say whatever you want to say to the entire planet. If you get popular, you can get people to subscribe to you and scale up--add more servers, and more and more.
It's never been cheaper or easier for the average person to buy his own soapbox tall enough to speak the the world.
I don't know what you have in mind, in your advocacy for "free speech"; you haven't told us. I get the feeling, that you like to keep your intentions ambiguous. And shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater isn't the only form of speech curtailed by law.
Frankly I'm amazed at the number of adult Americans who are leery of free speech, even going so far as putting it in scare quotes. Free speech is free speech. Support for it should not be considered ambiguous or a borderline criminal activity.
Back when there were were only three television networks, you couldn't demand any of their air time to deliver your own speech against Lyndon Johnson. You had to set up your own television network, like Ted Turner.
You couldn't demand that CBS Radio give you air time to give your speech against Franklin D Roosevelt. You had to set up your own
You couldn't demand the Wall Street Times give you editorial space to write your polemic against Teddy Roosevelt. You had to buy a printing press, paper, ink, and pay people to carry it across the country.
But today you--yes, you, Joe Sixpack--can buy a server and an Internet connection for less than $1,000 and set up a website to say whatever you want to say to the entire planet. If you get popular, you can get people to subscribe to you and scale up--add more servers, and more and more.
It's never been cheaper or easier for the average person to buy his own soapbox tall enough to speak the the world.
So, the moral of the story in this fascinating little vignette is, that when you plunk down your money for your news/opinion outlet, and get the licensing and all that. you get to make the rules on your own show. You own it, so you call the shots. The government doesn't make you invite people with opposing opinions to practice their right to Free Speech on your venue. They have no right to crash your venue for the sake of "equal time" for other opinions. There is no diversity-of-opinions requirement.
Would it be different, if the government owned a news/editorial outlet? IDK, but I'm going to stay tuned to the Ralph Kirk Channel, to see if there's more info forthcoming.
OK, let's say it's the 1970's and there are only 3 networks. Let's say you want to start a 4th network because you don't like the programming that's on the other 3.
Or better yet, let's take the actual case of MCI vs AT&T. MCI thought AT&T's long distance prices were too high so they started their own service.
But AT&T owned about 99% of the telephone poles and wouldn't rent space to MCI. Some said MCI should put up its own telephone poles next to AT&T's. Instead, MCI sued AT&T as a monopoly that practiced business unfairly and they won. AT&T was broken up as a result.
This is what I'm talking about. The tech companies of today act as an oligarchy or cartel, and they practice censorship of others.
Pardon me, if I decline to get into the weeds of MCI, whose entrails have now been subsumed into Verizon, I believe.
Frankly I'm amazed at the number of adult Americans who are leery of free speech, even going so far as putting it in scare quotes. Free speech is free speech. Support for it should not be considered ambiguous or a borderline criminal activity.
OK, so I gather you haven't read the points of free speech law posted earlier....
Cliff's: speech is not always free. There are limits to it far beyond yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And it sounds like you may have run into one or more of those limits.
Frankly I'm amazed at the number of adult Americans who are leery of free speech, even going so far as putting it in scare quotes. Free speech is free speech. Support for it should not be considered ambiguous or a borderline criminal activity.
It is common for people to think speech that makes them uncomfortable is not free speech, but hate speech.
It is common for people to think speech that makes them uncomfortable is not free speech, but hate speech.
This has always been the case.
We're discussing the legal limits of the 1st Amendment, not "speech that makes [people] uncomfortable". That should be clear from the content of some of the posts. Jtab is still being evasive about the nature of his (what you imply is) "discomforting" speech. Interesting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
